|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
15 Jun 2010, 04:59 (Ref:2712358) | #276 | |
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 180
|
Agreed. Pretty much every NASCAR "release" would be considered a "dangerous release" in F1. Not to mention some of the entrances too.
|
|
|
15 Jun 2010, 05:19 (Ref:2712365) | #277 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,525
|
No, your right, interlocking open wheels and banging fenders always has the same result.
|
||
__________________
ยินดีที่ได้รู้จัก |
15 Jun 2010, 13:38 (Ref:2712584) | #278 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7,175
|
Quote:
Plus, Lewis and Alonso wouldn't have touched whels, they woulda had a sidepod to wheel collision, which doesn't do anything. |
|||
|
15 Jun 2010, 15:50 (Ref:2712633) | #279 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,979
|
Quote:
What happened to TGF when he and Hill got into a "sidepod to wheel collision" at roughly the same speed during the final GP of 1994? Most likely has nothing to do with LAUNCH control, so its UP IN THE AIR, really. Oh, I do wonder... |
||
|
15 Jun 2010, 16:29 (Ref:2712655) | #280 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7,175
|
Quote:
There's a common denominator in all of those examples too, haha. |
|||
|
15 Jun 2010, 16:33 (Ref:2712657) | #281 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,979
|
||
|
16 Jun 2010, 01:19 (Ref:2712915) | #282 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 404
|
the rule might be wrong (or not) but it's a rule so should be enforced consistantly. Anyone who ends up beside another competitor has not had a safe release. If there are other pit crews out servicing their car, is there room for that behaviour?
What amuses me about NASCAR pitstops is the wheel nuts going everywhere which probably get run over and spat at speed at the pit bay behind as the car takes off. |
||
|
16 Jun 2010, 01:40 (Ref:2712921) | #283 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,457
|
Agree that NASCAR releases are generally more "out there" - it is great racing and the pit road action is wild but suits the racing in general.
There are some differences though - firstly, NASCAR crews are only allowed "over the wall" when their car is (from memory) one bay away - this means that exposed personnel in the pit road are limited in number. There is still exposure, but like I say, limited. Secondly, all NASCAR tracks have a low wall at the back of the (much wider than most F1) pit road which the crews (& others) are required to stay behind for most of the time - in an F1 pit lane, there is no wall across garage openings so (for example) a wheel coming off a car in pit lane could enter a garage and directly impact personnel. Lastly, NASCAR does not have the "prat perches" right there next to the cars out in the faster lane - they are behind the wall in NASCAR and the personnel on them are facing the direction of any likely danger whereas in F1 the personnel in the prat perches often have their back to pit lane. I love NASCAR racing - (someone suggested earlier that they wouldn't watch it - that person is missing out) but it is very different from F1 as is the physical construction of the pit lanes for each type of racing. Allowing F1 cars to effectively race (at pit lane speed limited pace of course) in pit lane is extremely short sighted in my view. Even at the lower speeds, there are too many exposed bodies in that environment for the racing to go on - the stewards or controlling body need to harden the hell up and do something about it. No need to hang drivers - just give everyone fair warning and stop it now before it gets out of control and people get hurt or worse. |
||
__________________
“We’re far from having too much horsepower…[m]y definition of too much horsepower is when all four wheels are spinning in every gear.” ― Mark Donohue |
16 Jun 2010, 01:40 (Ref:2712922) | #284 | ||
Rookie
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 11
|
I am with the unsafe release crowd here. Okay, so ultimately nothing happened, however there was a real potential for one, or both of those cars to end up on the pit wall and/or into a group of mechanics. If that had happened, then this would be a very different argument.
My understanding is that the new pit release ruling is clear cut however, as has happened on several occasions thoughout Hamilton's short career, such an infraction has been... overlooked. I also have to say that I am amazed Schuy was not penalised for his defence against Massa late in the race. With the current F1 rules, the cars are very flimsy, and do not take kindly to bumper cars style racing. As such, the FIA has to give drivers the confidence to pass, and not feel the defending driver will punt them into the tyres. Also, I am surprised by some of the comments stating that two F1 cars getting into the side of each other is okay, because they don't always get launched. An analogy to that would to be to fire a gun blind folded because you won't always shoot someone. What happens when a car does get launched...? People can die (Monza 2000, Melbourne 2001) My 2 cents. Last edited by MillRat; 16 Jun 2010 at 01:50. |
||
__________________
Hope is not a method..... Cheers, Michael. |
16 Jun 2010, 01:45 (Ref:2712925) | #285 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,418
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
16 Jun 2010, 07:01 (Ref:2712986) | #286 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 772
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
16 Jun 2010, 08:11 (Ref:2713019) | #287 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,126
|
Seems to be some blame going to Hamilton for this 'unsafe' release. Pretty sure he cannot be blamed for the release itself as he cannot see anything in those daft little mirrors - he has to rely on the lollipop man!!
Not sure what to say about the side by side stuff. Braking/backing off and slotting in behind whilst still in the pit area also has its own risks, whereas just cruising at 65mph or whatever down both lanes of the pits where cars are expected to be, doesn't seem overly hazardous. In this case, they simple ran parallel to each other down the lane - not racing until the speed limiter line was reached (Unlike the Vettel incident) - at which point LH obviously knew he was going to have to slot in behind so did so, not having got any advantage. |
||
__________________
Locost #54 Boldly Leaping where no car has gone before. And then being T-boned. Damn. Survivor of the 2008 2CV 24h!! 2 engines, one accident, 76mph and rain. |
16 Jun 2010, 08:33 (Ref:2713032) | #288 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,540
|
Given the thread title, I find it strange that no action has been taken against Hamilton at least for repeating the behaviour for which he had previously been reprimanded!
I agree the release wasn't unsafe as they were close enough to simultaneous, the key thing = one lane, one car not two (okay there are two lanes, the second is where the cars are worked on). The blue bit in the middle is to create the room to deal with release situations as in this case. Finally what is the difference between Hamilton dropping in behind at the end of pit lane or immediately he sees that Alonso has got the jump on him? Last edited by johnh875; 16 Jun 2010 at 08:44. |
||
|
16 Jun 2010, 22:07 (Ref:2713411) | #289 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 188
|
With all that high tech going on in F1 I wonder why you can't have a system that detects when a car is coming up from behind and switches some red lights on for all other pitting cars that would otherwise have an unsafe release. Because I see no way this can be avoided, as for example in Hamilton's case it was way to too close for a human to judge if Ham could've made it or not. And let's be honest, in F1 when they think there is the possibility that it might work out for their advantage, they will try it. Hadn't they released Hamilton, they would have been criticized for it - both the public and Hamilton.
|
||
|
28 Jun 2010, 00:13 (Ref:2719013) | #290 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
Stewards once again fail to deal with penalty involving Hamilton correctly!
Are the stewards biased? Quote "An irate Fernando Alonso hit out at race stewards for creating what he called an “unreal and unfair” result in the European Grand Prix over the time they took to issue Lewis Hamilton with his drive-through penalty." from: http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=48721 20 laps to deal with an obvious video incident of Hamilton overtaking the safety car under yellow! |
|
|
28 Jun 2010, 00:19 (Ref:2719015) | #291 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,418
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
28 Jun 2010, 01:47 (Ref:2719031) | #292 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,683
|
It's step in the right direction with the ex-driver consulting in the steward's room but would really like to see an official F1 steward. I know they like to have home country FIA officials as the stewards but wouldn't it be better to have maybe 2 at each event from a pool of 5 FIA reps. It could add a little stability and they would have knowledge about the debates about penalties at other races.
|
|
|
28 Jun 2010, 02:26 (Ref:2719040) | #293 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,418
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
28 Jun 2010, 14:25 (Ref:2719292) | #294 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 188
|
Quote:
But I still don't get why they didn't wait for the race leader when deploying the SC. Isn't this the usual approach? I'm not really convinced that the situation got better with the ex-drivers being advisors. Seems like the FIA acts more random than ever, and is probably using that whole advisor-thing as an justifaction to go lunatic. As in "Hey look, Frentzen was with us, so we can't be wrong.". |
|||
|
28 Jun 2010, 20:30 (Ref:2719502) | #295 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 43,280
|
It is annoyingly inconsistent. None of the incidents have been the same. Outrageous. Why can't these drivers do things wrong in a consistent manner?
I think they should have an F1 steward present in every car. |
||
__________________
It’s important to be too clever to enjoy. |
29 Jun 2010, 00:04 (Ref:2719573) | #296 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 188
|
That's not the issue, duh. Take the 5sec penality for example: They pick out a rather unimportant rule that the drivers seemingly couldn't follow in that case as it seems. So they stick very closely to the written word. Yet the impose a penality that is not possibly by the rules. Not even remotely. So you either go with a close interpretation of the rules, then the 5secs wouldn't be possible. Or you go with a rather lose interpretation, then nobody should have been punished at all.
Now remember this one: When Schumi overtook after the SC restart, he got a severe penality. Schumi interpreted the rules very closely to written word and FIA interpreted them according to their intent. FIA said they had no other option for another punishment as everythings specified within the rules. Yet now suddenly there are other punishments available? They switch their view on the valid interpretation of rules as they wish, total random. And now they even break clearly their own rules. Would you really call that consistent? |
||
|
29 Jun 2010, 00:16 (Ref:2719576) | #297 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,418
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
29 Jun 2010, 01:47 (Ref:2719604) | #298 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11,402
|
Quote:
That is a great idea I think the idea of inconsistent racing is pure rubbish.. |
|||
|
29 Jun 2010, 14:30 (Ref:2719868) | #299 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,606
|
|||
__________________
Show me a man who won't give it to his woman An' I'll show you somebody who will |
30 Jun 2010, 15:16 (Ref:2720397) | #300 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 188
|
Even when we forget about their strange and ever changing interpretation of the rules, I think there's quite an issue evolving this year. I find it quite strange why Hamilton only got a drive through instead of a stop-n-go. Overtaking the SC is not a minor issue. Did they want to make up their mistake of Monaco? It seems like the FIA indeed does not really care about the marshals. Schumi got a severe punishment when he overtook the SC although nobody could've been put in danger by his "mistake". Now Hamilton's overtaking and the speeding of several drivers under yellow/SC isn't punished that hard. Although both was could lead to very dangerous sitation in track involving the marshals or crashed drivers. Maybe they only dish out punishments whenever a (popular) car/driver has a disadavantage that everbody can see on screen, but they don't care whenever smth happens that the public doesn't really care about either.
If that's true, that might be a dangerous tendency indeed. The purpose of the whole regulations should be to ensure the safety on track foremost, not to put up a great show. |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Rules] Drivers as stewards! | Fox89 | Formula One | 8 | 12 Dec 2009 15:05 |
Stewards | skaife2 | Australasian Touring Cars. | 18 | 16 Jul 2009 13:38 |
The IPO and STEWARDS have to GO !~ ! | Matt H | Australasian Touring Cars. | 58 | 29 Aug 2005 22:18 |
Stewards = God | Archer | Australasian Touring Cars. | 21 | 15 Nov 2003 03:37 |
Stewards are a terrible | Scott75 | Australasian Touring Cars. | 55 | 28 May 2003 12:52 |